Stop throwing around the 5000 years of history. The oldest proven Chinese dynasty is the Shang, which started in 1200 BC. There is the Xia which predated them but by all historical records, the earliest that one started was 2000 BC.

The 5000 years number was started in the late 60's when Zhou Enlai was in Egypt visiting Nasser. So he moved the date of Chinese civilization back a thousand years so that Chinese civilization would be contemporary with ancient Egypt. That number has become official Chinese doctrine ever since.

This graphic is gibberish, and index created arbitrarily to create an index that can be adjusted to show anything.

The US Economy is nearly 14 trillion dollars
Japan's Economy is around 4 trillion
China's is also near 4 trillion

The EU depending on how you decide to define it and which countries to include is between 8 and 12 trillion.

It's unrealistic to think that countries like China and India with 60% of their populations engaged in subsistence agriculture will in 20 years have standards of living surpassing those of Europeans and Americans. Sorry -- this is just so much propaganda.

These kinds of ratings & forecasts I find acceptable to use after careful examinations of figures & methods used.

The world is determined to the great extent by geography & access to resources.

Just yesterday I was asked why Japan, not China, not Korea, not Vietnam or any other East Asian nation led economic modernization in the region.

I heard many plausible answers, but most forgot to mention geography.

Remember why ancient Greeks dominated Mediterranian world? Because geographically it was very easy to develop trading civilization there. But with Rome catching up Greek city states & Macedonia lacked depth & resources to stand up to Roman republic.

Japan is isolated and heavily populated chain of islands so it was difficult for European colonial powers to invade, that's why Western countries preferred to co-opt it into their designs. Japan political leadership at the time was also excellent and used temporary relief from foreign invasion, transfer of modern technologies & Confucian ethics of its population to their advantage.

But in the long run Japan is at disadvantage to China (again because of geography, resources). Chinais truly Celestial empire of Asian landmass. So when China got better leadership, management she quickly overtook Japan & on the course to overtake US.

When this happens nobody knows but I believe it's inevitable like the sun will be brighter than the moon. The centre of gravity in the world shifts to East Asia & Pacific.

History has never progressed in straight lines.What has happened in the past cannot be extrapolated in the future.

In the 1960s the USSR was on the ascennt beating US to space and outpacing its growth.There were proper RAND papers on the USSR overtaking the US economically.Reason? US frittered vast sums of money on frivolus things like Mc Donalds hamburgers and fancy cars whereas the USSR concentrated its money and manpower in science and tech...By the year 2000 the report concluded that there was a high probability of it overtaking the US.
But then from 1970-91 it stagnated and fell apart for reasons still not quite clear...

I don't understand why everyone is always saying that the US is "in decline". A rough couple of years does not mean absolute death for a nation. Again, no one is looking at all the strengths of the US, but rather they are focusing on the current weaknesses. I'm not saying become blissfully ignorant, but rather stop being so damn negative. Stop worrying about what "might" happen several years from now and start focusing on the problems that are in our face now. As for China, three decades of growth does not equate to long term stability. Even the Chinese government has recognized that, and now are actually trying to cool down the currently overheating machine that is the Chinese economy. We should not be so concerned with other countries that we let our problems fall to the wayside. Focus on what we have to do here, in the US, and then we can worry about the rest of the world.

You know, for as complicated as economy can be, The Economist seems to be a excessive China fanboy. I think in the near term China's economy will be larger in simple volume, but in the long term problems with social justice and massive population will absolutly bring China down. Social modernization will take generations and in that time new big players will emerge. China is today's story, but it won't last just as these charts suggest.

I added that U.S. weapons are of much better quality than old age Chinese weapons....The U.S. spends SIX TIMES more money in weapons than China, and by 2030 still will spend THREE TIMES more money in weapons than China. I just said that even if an agressive U.S. military polity tries to attack and invade China they can fail because even if Chinese weapons are of less quality they can manufacture much more weapons as they produce eight times more steel than the U.S.

So first you criticize US/UK media for making China look like a "threat", and then you argue that China will bury America into the ground with its superior steel output?

The Economist comments section is long overdue for a "Do Not Recommend" button.

________________________________________________________

@ Anglicus:

Indeed, including a comparison from 1870 adds some nice historical perspective. But including a comparison from *1570* would have allowed the 2030 forecast to represent an economic era coming full circle.

I apologize if you read this before but this essay is still pertinent:

Historical economist Angus Maddison in reports for the IMF took a longer term view of economics than just the Post WWII American School.

In studying World GDP for the past 4000 years, he found that China and India (combined), produce up to half of the world output for 90% of that period.

It is only in the past 300 years including the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Age of Exploration, the Age of Empire, Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution, that the West eclipsed the East.

The future is uncertain, but I do not see Spain or Portugal leading the world this century. Today Portugal and Spain are heavily indebted PIIGS. England is even more indebted but has an independent free floating currency. America is in decline and has the largest debt in the history of the world. Argentina was projected to be a world power in '99...that is 1899, but something did not work out.

And it is more than just having rapid economic growth. A country of 30 million or 60 million people, does not have the resources of a population of a billion. And a small land locked or frozen country, does not have the resources of a maritime power.

Few Modern Empires outlast a Century. And even fewer have been around for a Millennium. And even fewer are working on their 5th millennium. America is just recent arrival and one day, God willing, it will reach 1000 years old.

Rather than looking at quarterly, yearly, decade or generational data since WWII...look at the Century data. I urge you to look at the larger picture in historical economics from Maddison, OECD Report.

And now we may be seeing not the Rise of Asia, but the Re-Emergence of Asia. We are privileged to be witnessing historical transitions. Historians will scrutinize this era for significance: How do Empires Transition? If it is peaceful, it would be all the more remarkable.

I think the Western Economies need to take a longer view of Economic History. And forge new economic ties, less we again be left behind.

But will the U.S. win this time? If we take into account that the European Community of Steel and Coal which created the European Union was based on control of German steel as steel is the main source of Defense manufacturing....Now China produces EIGHT TIMES MORE STEEL than America, so they have the ability to manufacture a great deal of weapons even if the quality of most will be lower than the America.

It is not accurate. In the last special report of "The Economist" about China this year, the magazine ONLY used NOMINAL prices, not prices at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). At nominal (market) prices China´s economy in 2010 was just a little over Japan´s, about $5.5 Tr., almost 1/3 of the U.S., with a very low income per head of just $4,000 (at PPP over $7,000)...So why "The Economist" now uses GDP at PPP? It looks like the old days of the Cold War when Western media tried to create a "threatening" USSR with fake numbers and maninpulated maps. It looks Anglo-Americans now want to portrait China as the "Threat" even if the TRUTH is that thet the only nation which has invaded two Sovereign countries of 30 million people with a very, very agressive policy and lack of respect for international law has been the U.S.A. (United States) 50% of the World Defense spending comes also from the U.S.A. (more than the Nazis in its worse days) And it is the U.S. the one with dozens of military bases encincling China (S.Korea, Japan, Guam, Australia, Afghanistan...) while there is not a single Chinese military base next to America. I am very afraid of America and the U.K. I don´t have any doubt that, the same way they have done several times before (Spain, France, Germany, Russia) they will try to eliminate the competitor (CHINA)at any cost, at any cost. Remember this.

China is sitting on a looming demographic issue. Its aging population will create a shortage of workers in many parts of the economy, resulting in upward pressure on wages and downward pressure on economic growth rates.

IMF this year forecast the eclipse of the American Economy by China to occur as soon as 2016.

However dysfunctional American Politics, loss of the AAA Credit rating, persistent recession, and record unemployment of the past 6 months was not factored in. IT would probably move up the date.

When you do not have unlimited time or money, it would be best to compensate with a smart strategy. If America and China could integrate policy, integrate world leadership, integrate military and space strategy, integrate pollution controls, and integrate their diverse economies it would be to the benefit of both countries and the world. Great Britain employed this strategy 100 years ago when it found its Empire in decline. It began its 'Special Relationship' with a an upstart America and remained a world leader.

Obama said, the US-Sino Relation is now the most important in the world. And Obama's kids are learning Mandarin. That is the start of integration.